In Depth

Hoosier voters should be ready to show their government-issued photo identification at the polls next week after the Supreme
Court of the United States gave a green light to Indiana's voter ID law.
Other states may follow suit following the high court's ruling Monday that upheld Indiana's three-year-old statute.
But voters and the legal community should be just as ready for a new wave of Election Day regulation and subsequent litigation
because six justices agreed to some extent that voters could be burdened by the law.
The debate comes following a fractured 6-3 decision Monday in William Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et
al., No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party, et al. v. Todd Rokita, No. 07-25, a pair of consolidated cases. Opponents
argued that the 2005 law would unfairly target people who might have trouble getting an ID, while the state contended it needed
the right to impose the rules to prevent voter fraud.
But the plurality opinion led to justices conceding that the law could impose some special burden on some voters, though the
record doesn't have enough evidence to show what that burden is and that it's severe enough to overturn the state statute
entirely.
"They haven't completely slammed the courthouse door shut, but it's going to be problematic whether the right set of facts
will come along to convince judges this (type of law) should be struck down 'as applied,'" said William Groth, an attorney
who represented the Indiana Democratic Party. "It is hard to read Justice (John Paul) Stevens' majority opinion and come away
with any clear guidelines."
The decision came eight days before Hoosiers head to the polls for the May 6 primary, when a record turnout is expected.
During a conference call with media Monday afternoon, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita called the ruling a "clear cut
victory" for states wanting to impose voter ID rules. He said at least 25 states had called his office about the case since
it was argued in early January, and now this ruling can serve as a roadmap for those jurisdictions wanting to initiate similar
reforms. About 20 states already have some type of voter ID regulation.
But debate is already rampant about the ultimate meaning of this decision and what comes next.
Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said Monday that he was disappointed but also
encouraged by the possibilities left open by the court. If the law does burden voters at the polls next week, that could lead
to more ammunition for future litigation.
Election law professor Richard Hasen at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who'd filed an amicus curiae brief in the cases,
said the six justices who voted to uphold the law did so for different reasons and only three offered a strict interpretation
of defending the law. That means uncertainty for lower courts on this issue, he said.
Justice Stevens authored the majority's 21-page opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring;
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito concurred in result with a separate opinion, while Justices David
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented, calling the Indiana statute unconstitutional.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.